Are Jurys a good idea?

sailorseal wrote:There is a serious problem in the foundry. The process just doesn't seem right in my opinion. There needs to be some sort of set process for the formation of maps, not just they advance as the CAs deem it time. I think there needs to be standards set.Maybe I should put this in sugs and bugs?Example:50 different people making approving comments to get Advanced Draft

See just little things like this posted in the map making guide to set goals from map makers to work towards...

Well this is what I originally had but now this thread seems to have become a discussion about the Jury System...

Last edited by sailorseal on Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.

You're pretty much wrong. The Foundry (however dead) is most community-driven, and there have been instances when CAs have been opposed to something while the Foundry is for it, and it has been passed. However there are examples to the contrary.

Remember that there's no real formula to creating maps. It's a subjective process, and kinda has to be treated as such. The bar does seem to have been raised for making it out of the drafting room, but IMHO that's not a bad thing. The more Darwinian the process, the better the final result.

the.killing.44 wrote:You're pretty much wrong. The Foundry (however dead) is most community-driven, and there have been instances when CAs have been opposed to something while the Foundry is for it, and it has been passed. However there are examples to the contrary.

1. The foundry is not dead. We are getting more comments than ever, more and more people are making maps, and the maps are getting better with each new batch that comes out of here. (sorry, side note to someone who posted)2. The map makers are doing fine in giving maps stamps. They have requirements that need to be met. If they do not think someone's graphics are good, and only 1 or 2 of the veteran map makers approves of them, I would say that outweighs 50 random people who like the map. They have set requirements for the map, and there have been cases where the map maker might not personally like the map, but stamps it anyway because it is obvious that the majority of the people really like it.3. People tend to give out good comments even with the bad ones. No one is going to come in and completely trash a map if it has even an iota of potential. Also, it is way too easy to just get all your friends to come and compliment your map. I would say let the professionals decide on important things rather than trust to a majority.

Oaktown has a few beautiful posts around here somewhere, about how it is seemingly impossible to create "strictly defined" benchmarks, like the mentioned "x # of people supported Advanced Draft", etc. The C.A.'s, Stamp Lickers, and I do our best to clarify reasonably what we are all looking for.

If we could explicitly say map making was: "getting 20 person support, 10 revisions, in 2 months time," --- it would do a lot of injustice.

If you feel things are moving slowly in the Foundry, try to help out more, help the C.A.'s out when you can. Become a Stamp Licker, or if you don't want to (or we don't want you, ), check out other maps an try to anticipate what a C.A. might say in regards to stamp requirements. The C.A.s and Stamp Lickers do read, so if assist in their job, they can move from map to map quicker.

whitestazn88 wrote:i think he meant it's very common to see only a few regular posters over and over in a thread that are the only ones who bring enough good criticism to help a map thru the process...

There are indeed a few regular posters who's input is valuable. But they all come ago. The familiar posts I knew when I first started are all gone. The trick is...become one of those valued posters by commenting on other people's maps---and not focusing exclusively on your own. Invite some friends from your games or your clan or real life to come and give input in the Foundry...lets get more regulars!

the.killing.44 wrote:Yeah, that and no map, save CAs' ones and Rj+cairns's, get comments in that timeframe and in that magnitude like they did.

well, I've been a CA for about a year now, and if you look at my current maps in the Foundry you'll see that they are about as dead as the rest. The threads that show the most activity are the threads that show the most regular draft updates... if I let a thread sit for more than a day without an update it dies. You also have to consider map quality - if folks are excited about a map they will show up. If your idea is boring and your image dull you'll get little feedback.

the.killing.44 wrote:What you said's all true, but when you first made the Oakland - Graphic Novel map...

was that me, the map, or the idea? hard to say.

I think that it could be said that some mapmakers begin with more polished drafts than others, and thus are able to attract more attention early on. That particular map (Oakland) started out pretty cool looking - if I do say so myself - though I'm not sure I have the skills to take it where I would like it to eventually go. RjBeals and Widowmakers have both made first drafts that look about as good as many mapmakers' final drafts; the Centrescape competition is an excellent example - both Rj and Widow had very finished-looking entries.

I certainly don't mean to toot my own horn - I've had many absolutely awful looking first drafts. (Los Angeles? What was I thinking?!?) But having quenched a few maps and abandoned many more I've figured a lot out and put a lot of mistakes behind me. I can throw together a simple first draft in under an hour that still has smooth borders, clean text, and good territory spacing. Taking that first draft the extra yard and making it quenchable is still a ton of work.

the.killing.44, can you please stop pointing out every map thread that gets abandoned or not posted it?

Let's face it, not every map is good, and not every map is interesting to everyone, so please stop going around and saying "the foundry is dead" in every post then pointing out maps that have no more needed to be done to them.

It is like complaining that no one is posting in a thread where all they are doing is waiting for a gameplay element to be added to the xml. If a map is not good, no one posts. If no one is interested in a map, no one posts, if the map is dead then certain people should just face the truth that the map is not going to meet the standards which are set.

You're really missing my point …I'm not saying the Foundry is dead map-wise — quite the opposite, as the newest maps that keep coming in and out better as they come — I'm saying that the Foundry is losing the comments that it had, like I pointed out from May '08.

the.killing.44 wrote:You're really missing my point …I'm not saying the Foundry is dead map-wise — quite the opposite, as the newest maps that keep coming in and out better as they come — I'm saying that the Foundry is losing the comments that it had, like I pointed out from May '08.

.44

That is what I am talking about.

You show examples of dead maps and then complain that they are not getting enough comments... seriously...

I am saying that in May, there were comments coming onto maps in magnitude like I pointed out using examples from May. Now, the Foundry has slowed down comments-wise on new maps. I am not pointing out that there should be a ton of comments on a Quenched map or a Vacationed/Abandoned one, but rather that in maps in progress (especially new ones) there isn't the feedback by number of posters nor number of posts that there were previously.

I am saying that in May, there were comments coming onto maps in magnitude like I pointed out using examples from May. Now, the Foundry has slowed down comments-wise on new maps. I am not pointing out that there should be a ton of comments on a Quenched map or a Vacationed/Abandoned one, but rather that in maps in progress (especially new ones) there isn't the feedback by number of posters nor number of posts that there were previously.

.44

I quite disagree. The amount of comments you get is solely up to the map maker.

You pointed out some very good maps, and they got a lot of comments. Now look at the Balcans map... growing more than a page a day. Look at the Jamaca map, also got many comments so far, your own example of Oakland's map which was just a month back, Gallipoli and Gilgamesh get 2 comments a day, and then there are several more replies in every active thread within the main foundry when I log on.

I agree on some points and disagree on others. For one, I pointed out oak's map because I was saying that CAs' maps get comments because of the blue and what comes with that. Yes, the Balkans map is very active (and I'm a part of that). And of course, maps get more and more comments as they progress (but that's a different issue).

However, you did state some false things. For one, the last comment on Gallipoli was on January 19th by cairns himself — a week ago. The last comment on Gilgamesh was on January 22nd, four days ago. So that comment itself is false. Now to contradict that, what I was pointing out was the amount of feedback OPs get, which is what I said from Oakland and Pearl Harbor. That applies to all the maps you said — Gallipoli (slowed down), Gilgamesh (slowed down), and Jamaica (still in its beginnings). But no, we do not know what will happen to Jamaica.

But, you were right on one thing — the amount of comments is up to the maker (to an extent). Gilg. and Gall. have slowed down because there have been no updates. And the opposite applies to Jamaica, where it is in its first stages so obviously the versions are in the lowest numbers.

But like Incandenza said on Poison Rome:

Incandenza wrote:Hell, no one gets tons of responses in their map threads any more. … Remember when you started, it was basically you, me, and yeti for like 3 pages...